In Re: Sahadevan

K.N. Mudaliyar, J.—This is an appeal filed by Sahadevan, the Appellant herein against his conviction for an offence u/s 363, I. P. C. and a

sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment.

Briefly, the facts are: P.W. 2 is the girl who is a minor. She is below 18 years. Mallika (P.W. 2) and Sahadevan, the accused were studying in

the same class. She used to consult the accused regarding her doubts in her studies. After the last examination was over on 3rd April 1970, in

regard to the 11th standard examination, the accused represented to P.W. 2 that he would take her to Bangalore, that she agreed and that the

accused took her to Bangalore straightaway from the school and both of them stayed at Bangalore for ten days in the house of the relations of the

accused. The learned trial Magistrate found that P.W. 2 is a minor girl under 18 years of age. In her chief-examination P.W. 2 stated that 3rd April

1970 was the last day of the examination. On that day, both the accused and P.W. 2, Mallika, wrote the examination. She used to consult the

accused for resolving her doubts. According to P.W. 2, at the end of the last examination the accused asked P.W, 2, Mallika

(""He said that he would take me round ''Bangalore''. I was desirous and consented. Soon after the last examination, we started from the school

itself""). She further stated that the accused never committed any act of fornication with her. From the school she went to the station straight. This

evidence would imply that when she went to the station to go to Bangalore she was not accompanied by the accused. No doubt, in one place in

her cross-examination she has stated that the accused called her to Bangalore, that she refused to go, that she told him that she would not

accompany him, and that the accused compelled her to go and took her to Bangalore.

Even accepting the entire testimony of the victim girl, P.W. 2, Mallika, I am unable to see how the ingredients of S. 363 , I.P.C. are made out

by the evidence on record. The entire evidence of P.W. 2 would not constitute either ""taking or enticing"" within the meaning of S. 363, I.P.C. In

her evidence she has stated that they moved like brother and sister. In the light of this evidence, I cannot but hold that the offence u/s 363, I.P.C. is

not proved by the prosecution. The accused is entitled to an acquittal and he is acquitted of the offence u/s 363, I.P.C. The criminal appeal is

allowed. The bail bonds are cancelled.